Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

B789

Exhibits 1 & 2 appear to be the same picture. If you're trying to show the difference between the signs on different dates, maybe try and show the pictures from similar angles, side by side.

1.   I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and research. 

The addition above is to rebut any attempt by the claimant to accuse you of using this forum as a method of gaining knowledge.

 11. 16 days later, I received the second later from the claimants legal team, threatening of further fees equating to £247.30 which included additional amounts for estimated interest (£12.30), estimated court fees (£25) and estimated solicitors costs (£50).

The court fees and solicitor costs are not "estimated". They are the fixed amounts allowed in a small claim. The "£60 initial legal costs" you quote in para #10 are the added costs that are not allowed in a small claim as long as you point it out and quote the relevant CPRs.

This bit from someone else's WS covers most of what you need to counter the "£60 initial legal costs" or whatever they've called them in their PoC:

1. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

2. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

3.  Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85. 

4. The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

Coupon-mad

Don't call it a fine. 

Do use the second half of the WS by @aphex007 or @SJRRJS which gives you the stuff about the added fake 'fees' and the incoming DLUHC CoP that you need.

Harvez63

Thanks both. 

@B789 the reason exhibit 01 and 02 are the same photo just different parts highlighted, is because I wanted to relate them to points 12 and then 13 individually, highlighting one sign points to a dark sign in the corner. Do you think I should still keep this?

@Coupon-mad thank you, changed it to "invoice". See complete WS

I suspect I may need to trim out my points regarding their letters as its mentioned later down?

Can I add anywhere about the claimants conduct? about the CCJ? ignoring judges date continually? 

1.   I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and research. 

 2.   In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows: 

 Sequence of events

3.   I visited Subway on Spring Road, Southampton, on 28-12-2017. 

4.   It was the first time visiting the site and a last minute decision to get food on the way home. On entry to the site I did not see any contractual signage on entering the car park, or during the 13 minute stay which was within the car the entire time. 

5.   The car park is entered from a busy road with both people, cars and delivery lorry’s to consider.

6.   My partner went inside subway whilst I remained in the car. During which the car park was empty, and I turned around in a bay, and sat adjacent to the parking spaces/building. From this seated position in the car whilst stopped, no signs where visible in any direction, and none where noticed during the manoeuvre.

7.   The car park is between Subway and Tesco’s, The car park boundary includes and appears to serve these stores, but the parking is apparently owned by Vets4Pets in the building adjacent, something learned after the event. 

 8.   Shortly after this I learned of the PCN which was issued to my address, followed by a barrage of letters threating of “CCJs” and “Debt Recovery”. The original invoice was asking for £60 if paid early, then it was upped to £100. 

 9.   I appealed the fine with their online appeal portal, but was immediately rejected. Which I’ve researched online and its self-regulated and I couldn’t find a single person that had successfully reported they’d accepted the appeal, but instead hundreds instantly rejected. 

 10. 5 months later (26th June 2019) I received a letter from the claims legal team now demanding £160, which now included £60 “initial legal costs”.

 11. 16 days later, I received the second later from the claimants legal team, threatening of further fees equating to £247.30 which included additional amounts for estimated interest (£12.30), court fees (£25) and solicitors costs (£50).

 12. Upon researching the site after receiving these letters, I found there was a small sign on entry reading “Parking restrictions in place, see additional signs for full details” [exhibit 01]. This sign isn’t readable on entry whilst trying to cross a busy road, across a public footpath, and into the carpark due to its size and location. 

 13. The additional sign was not only very small but it was in a very dark corner of the site and at a height that’s not readable from a car, and in the direction of a brick wall/deadend, which one wouldn’t walk or look towards to notice the additional sign [exhibit 02]. 

 14. There are two signs, to two spaces on a low wall which read “Vets4Pets Veterinary Surgery, Client Parking Only” [exhibit 03]. I did not park, nor manoeuvre within these spaces.

 15. Whilst researching the site, the signs move every 6 months according to google historic data. Not only the position of the signs, but the frequency in which they’re displayed.  [Exhibits 01 & 04-08]

 16. I visited the site again on 01/05/2023, and the signs have quadrupled in size and frequency compared to 2017 during my visit where only 2 small signs existed in a font only readable from 1 metre away. [Exhibits 08, 09 10]

 17. The new exit sign have made it clear that parking restrictions are in place [Exhibit 11]. This wasn’t in place on 28th December 2017. 

 18. Some of the new signs are falling apart yet again and the condition of the signs appear aren't being checked or maintained to ensure they’re in a readable state [Exhibit 12]. 

 19. Furthermore, upon searching online, it is clear that I am not the only person to have fallen foul to the lack of signage. 

 20. I refer to British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice version 8 – January 2020 section 19.3 (Exhibit 13). This specifically states that signs with specific parking terms must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle. It is no such signs are visible during my stop.

 21. It is therefore denied that I entered a legally binding contract, as no clear and visible signage existed on the road onto the site, or at the car park entrance where I parked my car and on the date of the 28thDecember 2017, at no point did I believe any permission to park was needed. Even if the court believes the sign (that was not prominent and was not seen) is capable of offering and creating a contractual agreement, that offer was not made by this Claimant.

Abuse of process - the quantum

22. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that the intention is for this to be banned in the new code of practice. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD 

[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.

 23. My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

 24. Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale. Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track

 25. Adding debt recovery/costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is due to be banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued

 26. This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs in the incoming statutory Code of Practice. The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking. Clearly an abuse of the court process

 27. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.

 28. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response (also in February 2022), they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced

 29. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit

 30. These are costs which the Claimant has neither paid nor incurred and were not quantified in prominent lettering on alleged signage. Introducing the purported 'costs' add-on in later debt demands is a moneymaking exercise to extract a high fixed sum from weaker motorists and came far too late. I did not agree to it

 31. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts

 32. This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further

 33. It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including Britannia, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years. And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along. As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson [not appealed - see Exhibit 14] where she went into great detail about this abuse

 34. The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth. This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover. The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating (for the avoidance of doubt) the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court, would be welcomed to bring muchneeded clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

 35. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made. Evidence - including unclear signage and Codes of Practice - was either ignored, even when in evidence at both hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC

 

CPR 44.11 - further costs

 

36. I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in elation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that the Claimants representative did not have reasonable cause to issue the PCN, as there were no Claimant signs clearly and prominently displayed on the approach road to Crickley Hill car park, at the entrance to the car park, or near the space in which my vehicle was parked. It is denied that clear and visible signage exists on this road; therefore it is denied I am in breach of terms and conditions. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action, but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery.

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

 37. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave

38. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

Statement of truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Harvez63

BWL havent issued anything to me yet btw. Reading my latest letter from the court, in bold below, "In addition, the Court will not consider any document that has not been sent in accordance with order" - does this not get enforced then? i.e. they've missed another deadline so they cannot bring anything to the table now?

B789

Harvez63 said:

3.   I visited the Subway shop on Spring Road, Southampton, on 28-12-2017. <<<(Keep to a standard date format throughout)

4.   It was the first time visiting the site car park and a last minute decision to get food on the way home. On entry to the site car park I did not see any obvious or prominent contractual signage on entering the car park, or during the 13 minute stay which was during which I remained within the car the entire time. 

5.   The car park is entered from a busy road with both people pedestrians, moving cars and delivery vehicles lorry’s to consider.

6.   My partner went inside Subway shop whilst I remained in the car. During which The car park was empty, and so I manouvered the car to reverse turned around into a marked bay, and sat adjacent to the parking spaces/building. From this the drivers seated position in the car whilst parked stopped, there were no signs where visible in the car park any direction, and none no signs were where noticed obvious or prominent during the reversing manoeuvre.

7.   The car park is located between the Subway shop and a Tesco’s store. The car park is adjacent to these two premises boundary includes and appears to serve these stores. but However, after the event, I learnt that the parking car park is apparently owned by Vets4Pets in the building adjacent to the [which store?]. something learned after the event. 

 8.   Shortly after this event I learned of  received the PCN which was issued to was posted to my address. There followed by a barrage of letters from debt collectors threating of and “Debt Recovery” and “CCJs”. The original PCN "invoice" was for £100, discounted if paid within 14 days. asking for £60 if paid early, then it was upped to £100. 

 9.   I appealed the fine PCN with through their the Claimants' online appeal portal but it was refused. immediately rejected. Which I’ve I have since researched online about this unregulated Claimants appeals service and I could not find any instances where a motorist has had a successful appeal. There are however, hundreds of reports of motorists haveing their appeal rejected. its self-regulated and I couldn’t find a single person that had successfully reported they’d accepted the appeal, but instead hundreds instantly rejected. 

 10. 5 Five months later (26th June 2019) <<<(Keep to a standard date format throughout) I received a letter from the claims Claimants' legal team now demanding an added £60 for "initial legal costs" on top of the original charge of £100”.  You need to include evidence why this added £60 should not be added because... (do some research)

 11. 16 days later (date?), I received the second later from the Claimants legal team threatening of further even more added fees equating bringing the total sum claimed to £247.30 which included additional amounts for estimated interest (£12.30), court fees (£25) and solicitors costs (£50).

 12. Upon researching the site After receiving these the threatening letters from the Claimants legal team, I went back to the car park and found there was now a small sign on entry reading “Parking restrictions in place, see additional signs for full details” [exhibit 01]. This sign was not in place or was much smaller (double check your information) then the sign that was in place in 2017. This entrance sign isn’t is not readable by a driver on entry to the car park whilst trying to turn to cross a busy road, across a public footpath and into the car park due to its size and location. 

 13. The additional sign as evidenced in [exhibit 02], was not only very small but it was in a very dark corner of the site car park and at a height that’s not readable from the drivers seat in a car and in the direction of a brick wall/deadend, which one wouldn’t walk or look towards if exiting the car to notice the additional sign [exhibit 02]. (You need to make clear which photos are from the time of the event and which are more recent as proof that they must have been inadequate at the time.)

 14. There are two additional signs on a low wall adjacent to two parking spaces on a low wall which read “Vets4Pets Veterinary Surgery, Client Parking Only” [exhibit 03]. I did not park nor manoeuvre within these spaces.

 15. Whilst researching the car park site, the positions of the signs have been moved every 6 months according to Google Street View historic data. Not only the position of the signs, but the frequency in which they’re displayed.  [Exhibits 01 & 04-08]

 16. I visited the site car park again on 01/05/2023 <<<(Keep to a standard date format throughout), and the signs have now quadrupled in size and frequency number compared to 2017 during my visit where when only 2 small signs existed in with a font size only readable from 1 a metre or less away. [Exhibits 08, 09 10]

 17. The new exit sign which was not in place on 28th December 2017 have made now makes it clear that parking restrictions are in place [Exhibit 11]. This wasn’t in place on 28th December 2017. 

 18. Some of the new signs are already falling apart yet again and the condition of the signs appear shows that they aren't being checked or maintained to ensure they’re in a readable state [Exhibit 12]. 

 19. Furthermore, upon searching online, it is clear that I am not the only person to have fallen foul to the lack of signage. <<<(Is this really relevant?)

Some suggestions to correct or clarify parts of the WS. I haven't read beyond para #19 as there is too much and I've already spent too long going through what I've suggested above. Maybe a bit more proofreading and perhaps a grammar and spelling check would be useful.

Harvez63

Not my strong points but I really appreciate your time @B789, thank you 

1505grandad

" 20. I refer to British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice version 8 – January 2020 section 19.3 (Exhibit 13)."

Pedantic observation  -  you should be using/quoting the BPA CoP relevant to date of parking event (although re signs probably states the same as already quoted}

Coupon-mad

Harvez63 said:

BWL havent issued anything to me yet btw. Reading my latest letter from the court, in bold below, "In addition, the Court will not consider any document that has not been sent in accordance with order" - does this not get enforced then? i.e. they've missed another deadline so they cannot bring anything to the table now?

Perfect!

Why not make that observation in the introductory paragraphs of your WS?  The Order says WILL NOT so you can certainly say this.

Harvez63

@B789 now I corrected the grammar within the WS, I appreciate it even more the time and effort you went to help. 

I've added points 3 and 4 - not sure how hard I can go in on them. Just want to highlight as much as possible how much disregard there is to judges orders.

There are a couple of elements for me to update, but I have back to back meetings for the rest of the day  

1.   I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and research. 

 2.   In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows: 

 3.   The defendant also notes point 8, from the letter received from Deputy District Judge Kirkconel on 3rdApril 2023, the following statement “The Claimant must send the documents so that they are received by no later than 4.00pm on 02 May 2023. The claimants documents must include a copy of the agreement (redacted if necessary to preserve commercial confidentiality) giving authority to regulate parking on the land in question.”, this deadline set by the Judge has been ignored.

 4.   This claim was also associated with a surprise CCJ placed on the Defendant, which the Claimant relentlessly denied any wrong doing for 12 months and pursued. Before a day before the hearing signing a consent order admitting to the claim form had been improperly served in the first place. Again, the Claimant ignored the judge’s orders and dates set to refund the Defendant their N244 money.

 

Sequence of events

 

5.     I visited the Subway shop on Spring Road, Southampton, on 28-12-2017.

6.     It was the first time visiting the car park and a last minute decision to get food on the way home. On entry to the car park I did not see any obvious or prominent contractual signage or during the 13 minute stay during which I remained within the car the entire time. 

7.     The car park is entered from a busy road with pedestrians, moving cars and delivery vehicles to consider.

 

8.     My partner went inside Subway shop whilst I remained in the car. The car park was empty so I manouvered the car to reverse into a marked bay adjacent to the building. From the drivers seated position whilst parked, there were no signs visible in the car park, and no signs were obvious or prominent during the reversing manoeuvre.

 9.     The car park is located between the Subway shop and a Tesco store. The car park is adjacent to these two premises and appears to serve these stores. However, after the event, I learnt that the car park is owned by Vets4Pets in the building adjacent to the Subway shop.

 10.  Shortly after this event I received the PCN which was posted to my address. There followed a barrage of letters from debt collectors threating “Debt Recovery” and “CCJs”. The original PCN "invoice" was for £100, discounted if paid within 14 days. 

 11.  I appealed the PCN through the Claimants' online appeal portal but it was refused. I have since researched online about this unregulated Claimants appeals service and I could not find any instances where a motorist has had a successful appeal. There are however, hundreds of reports of motorists having their appeal rejected.

12.  Five months later (26.06.2019)  I received a letter from the Claimants' legal team now demanding an added £60 for "initial legal costs" on top of the original charge of £100”.   Note to self: include evidence why this added £60 should not be added because... (do some research)

13.  16 days later (12..07.2019) I received the second later from the Claimants legal team threatening even more added fees bringing the total sum claimed to £247.30 which included additional amounts for estimated interest (£12.30), court fees (£25) and solicitors costs (£50).

14.  After receiving the threatening letters from the Claimants legal team, I went back to the car park and found there was now a small sign on entry reading “Parking restrictions in place, see additional signs for full details” [exhibit 01]. This sign was not in place or was much smaller then the sign that was in place in 2017. This entrance sign is not readable by a driver on entry to the car park whilst trying to turn to cross a busy road, across a public footpath and into the car park due to its location. 

15.  The additional sign as evidenced in [exhibit 02], was not only very small but it was in a very dark corner of the car park and at a height that’s not readable from the drivers seat in a car and in the direction of a brick wall/deadend, which one wouldn’t walk or look towards if exiting the car [exhibit 02]. (Note to self: make clear which photos are from the time of the event and which are more recent as proof that they must have been inadequate at the time.)

16.  There are two additional signs on a low wall adjacent to two parking spaces which read “Vets4Pets Veterinary Surgery, Client Parking Only” [exhibit 03]. I did not park nor manoeuvre within these spaces.

17.  Whilst researching the car park, the positions of the signs have been moved every 6 months according to Google Street View historic data. [Exhibits 01 & 04-08].

18.  I visited the car park again on 01.05.2023 and the signs have now quadrupled in size and number compared to 2017when only 2 small signs existed with a font size only readable from a metre or less. [Exhibits 08, 09 10].

19.  The new exit sign which was not in place on 28.12.2017 now makes it clear that parking restrictions are in place [Exhibit 11].

20.  Some of the new signs are already falling apart yet again and the condition of the signs shows that they aren't being checked or maintained to ensure they’re in a readable state [Exhibit 12]. 

21. I refer to British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice version 8 – January 2020 section 19.3 (Exhibit 13). This specifically states that signs with specific parking terms must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle. It is no such signs are visible during my stop. (note to self: quote BPA relevant to date of parking event, update)

22. It is therefore denied that I entered a legally binding contract, as no clear and visible signage existed on the road onto the site, or at the car park entrance where I parked my car and on the date of the 28thDecember 2017, at no point did I believe any permission to park was needed. Even if the court believes the sign (that was not prominent and was not seen) is capable of offering and creating a contractual agreement, that offer was not made by this Claimant.

 

Abuse of process - the quantum

 

23. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that the intention is for this to be banned in the new code of practice. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD 

[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.

24. My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

25. Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale. Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track

26. Adding debt recovery/costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is due to be banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued

27. This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs in the incoming statutory Code of Practice. The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking. Clearly an abuse of the court process

28. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.

29. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response (also in February 2022), they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced

30. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit

31. These are costs which the Claimant has neither paid nor incurred and were not quantified in prominent lettering on alleged signage. Introducing the purported 'costs' add-on in later debt demands is a moneymaking exercise to extract a high fixed sum from weaker motorists and came far too late. I did not agree to it

32. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts

33. This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further

34. It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including Britannia, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years. And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along. As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson [not appealed - see Exhibit 14] where she went into great detail about this abuse

35. The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth. This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover. The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating (for the avoidance of doubt) the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court, would be welcomed to bring muchneeded clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

36. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made. Evidence - including unclear signage and Codes of Practice - was either ignored, even when in evidence at both hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC 

 

Harvez63

 CPR 44.11 - further costs

37. I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in elation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that the Claimants representative did not have reasonable cause to issue the PCN, as there were no Claimant signs clearly and prominently displayed on the approach road to Crickley Hill car park, at the entrance to the car park, or near the space in which my vehicle was parked. It is denied that clear and visible signage exists on this road; therefore it is denied I am in breach of terms and conditions. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action, but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery.

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

38. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave

39. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

Statement of truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.